Kitchen, Jeurissen, Gray, and Courtney, Teacher engagement with academic reading


Margaret Kitchen
Maree Jeurissen
Susan Gray
Matthew Courtney
The University of Auckland

First received: 27 September 2016 Final proof received: 11 January 2017

Engaging school teachers with academic reading is challenging for all teacher trainers, yet if
teachers’ knowledge base is to be up-to-date the input of new research information is essential.
Within the field of teacher professional development, few research studies focus primarily on teacher
academic reading. On the Auckland New Zealand TESOL diploma course reported on here,
academic readings are key. They theorise the weekly lecture topics and provide practical strategies
that embed the theory. Three approaches to academic reading are used. These three approaches are
the focus of the study reported here, exploring the attitudes of the 49 elementary and secondary
school teachers over the two years of the part-time course. Quantitative questionnaire findings and
relevant qualitative interview data which explicate the quantitative findings are reported on. The key
finding was that, on average, the entire sample exhibited a large and statistically significant increase
in engagement in academic reading over the two-year period. A majority of the teachers favoured the
third approach to academic reading, being tightly structured, supportive reading groups rather than
independent reading or reading presentation to a group. They valued the interdependence and
reciprocity of the tightly structured reading groups.

Keywords: teacher academic reading; teacher professional development; TESOL; structured
reading groups

Teachers’ knowledge base relies on the input of new academic reading is disappointingly low.
research information. Through academic reading, On the Auckland New Zealand TESOL
teachers can keep up to date with new insights and (Teaching English to Speakers in Schools of Other
developments influencing their professional field, Languages) diploma course reported on here,
new teaching and pedagogical approaches, and also academic readings are key. They theorise the
new societal developments which impact education weekly lecture topics and some provide practical
(Kwakman, 2003). In their synthesis of research strategies that embed the theory. In 2014, the
evidence that aims to explain what works in researchers, lecturers on the TESOL course, set out
improving education outcomes and why, Timperley, to explore teachers’ engagement with, and use of,
Wilson, Barrar and Fung (2007) identified seven readings. We wanted to know what the underlying
critical elements of professional learning. These factors relating to teacher engagement with
include focusing on reviewed academic readings academic reading were, particularly in relation to
that provide substantive new learning around the three different reading approaches used. We also
content, skills and/or ways to think about existing wanted to find out whether levels of reading
teaching practices, content having some consistency engagement changed over the two years of the
with wider trends in policy and research, and course. This article reports on the quantitative
challenging prevailing thinking. Consequently, it is findings from 49 primary and secondary school
surprising to find that academic reading is given teachers. It also draws on relevant qualitative data to
little explicit attention in the large field of teacher explicate the quantitative findings.
professional development literature or school The review of literature that follows provides a
improvement/reform literature (for example: Borko context for our questions. It addresses academic
& Putnam, 1996; Darling-Hammond, 1998). reading’s role in post-service professional
Kwakman’s (2003) large study in the Netherlands development and the nature of the academic
into factors affecting teacher learning is one with an knowledge required for effective teacher
explicit focus on teacher reading. That study’s professional development for those working in
findings suggest that teacher participation in multicultural and multilingual schools.

260 doi:

This is the focus small group work gave them positive pressure to of the following section. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics. and 149) in their large study in English primary and another requires developing connections to other secondary schools found. 6 No. like Kwakman (2003). Before the group meeting. permit. Students met with their groups reasons for undertaking professional development in each week. may account for the poor These teachers. that of devil’s advocate. complete the reading to be able to participate in the discussion. 261 . 354). thus providing a on being able to apply theory to actual classroom supportive environment in which teachers feel realities rather than the site of learning that is the empowered to take risks and change. Little concepts (dynamic and debated as they may be) in discussed strong and weak forms of teacher collegial informing the contextualised development of theory interdependence contending that. of the roles. January 2017. is that they need to settings). have participation of teachers in professional enrolled because they are seeking ways to change development on school sites. In their longitudinal studies. helped them understand multiple The nature of the knowledge required for perspectives on the readings and topics. Fostering and small groups and a set of rotating group roles actively using interpersonal relationships in (discussion leader. In a multilingual school setting the to the group in their given role. Sammons. it could be hypothesised. such as Parrott and Cherry (2011) described is the Kumaravadivelu. 2. multicultural and multilingual schools Although the important role of a rich. Its absence. academic readings and existing educational beliefs that the extent to which personal drivers dominated and wider policy. 154). Le Fevre’s important variable. beyond that affect learning conditions and classrooms is also that. have a role in decision-making and change: a they had found significant difficulties in getting “strong teacher voice in the development of policies their students “to complete the readings and. and helped effective teacher professional development in them better comprehend the theories and concepts in the readings themselves (2011. passage master. one means taking account of teachers’ personal drivers. planning and implementing professional learning creative connector. Kwakman existing beliefs. having them engage in deep reading” (p. Spillane reading (requiring both individual and collaborative and Louis (2002. Parrott and Another factor critical to teachers’ effective Cherry sought ways to engage learners with deep involvement in professional development. students to challenge the reading’s ideas. Gonzalez. TESOL teachers were most dependent on each other. 1992) has the potential to provide the Parrott and Cherry’s (2011) study suggests context for challenging discussions and the approaches to academic reading that can provide the application of theory to actual classroom realities. or inhibit Sinnema and Robinson (2012) found that a great teachers’ initiative toward one another with regard deal of current training for school leaders focuses on to matters of curriculum and instruction” (p. and reporter). In their work with social science students. The students teachers with expertise in TESOL are the ones on reported that: whom school leadership needs to draw when planning professional development. Parrott and Cherry set through “a web of interpersonal relationships – with conditions for group work: students were assigned people rather than through them”. For are required to engage. 2012. 2006). 99) contend. 531). Neff & valourises (2003). Vol. whereas the context of this school-based professional learning to work. A university classroom and are already the actors arranging their own where teachers from different settings possess learning processes in ways that Kwakman (2003) differing funds of knowledge (Moll. 260-270 Reading’s role in teacher post-service Situatedness is one condition both cognitive professional development psychological and teacher development theorists Le Fevre (2014) points out how challenging it is for tend to argue is critical to teacher learning in teachers to take on new information that challenges professional development settings. p. Stobart. She discusses ways schools can (2003) contends that it is a situatedness contingent reduce the level of perceived risk. pp. Interestingly. Kwakman surmised. Amanti. in joint work. This knowledge can provide a critical lens for school study responds to Little’s call for more research into policy development. schools and all have chosen to enrol in the course. p. Kingston and Gu (2007. requires Day. p. study reported on here is a university classroom considerable thought was required to provide where colleagues are teachers from many different adequate school learning infrastructure. they were to all phases of teachers’ professional life “was complete the reading and be prepared to contribute striking”. 77) also suggest that They concluded that this was because groups were school leadership plan professional development often poorly organised. important”. “the conditions that require. devil’s advocate. support Le Fevre contends is necessary. In 1990. Her study found that “the research arises from school-based professional activity itself is considered more important than the development in which all teachers within a school situation in which it takes place” (p. 364). local contextual familiarity in developing theory and A critical factor in structured reading groups practice is widely acknowledged (Allwright. p. learning about TESOL interdependence of group members. and practice is less widely recognised. Murphy (2002.

while academic learning inspired the study. each week. For the second course (372). 2016. To complete the Diploma the low socio-economic communities. Each week the small groups. and (4) With qualifications. open-ended writing topic probing the teachers’ Important to note too. quality of life in the classroom by understanding 1992). York-Barr and Duke (2004. Auckland. and in these settings TESOL knowledge the core compulsory courses and why? In analysing is required. a reflective context. New conflated these. there are few studies that explicitly focus on academic reading. Timperley. What is not often teachers need four more courses which they select discussed is that many of these low socio-economic from a range of options. For the Jeurissen.Kitchen. and a collaborative beginning and end of the four core courses. In Year Two ways schools operate and in the core functions of (373 and 374). New Zealand’s population is categorised by super. 2011). all (Department of Education and Science [DES]. Gray & approached the reading in one of three ways. the researchers took responsibility for developing diversity. The conditions most likely to encourage METHOD uptake and consequent experimentation or Two types of data sources inform this report: a application in the classroom appear to be teacher Likert-scale questionnaire administered towards the agency. communities are multilingual and multicultural and Within each of the four core courses (denoted that understanding TESOL concepts is required if a as 227. We met connected. attending the consecutive courses after to open up new horizons for principals working in school once a week. 2006) was employed. Spillane & Louis. “multiple-origin. is that making a difference to preferences around the three different reading entrenched patterns of ethnic and social class approaches that accompanied the second iteration of profiles of students with low achievement has the questionnaire. 255) contend that reflective classroom teachers on the given week present the chosen reading to a must be at the centre of improvement efforts: “The group of teachers. the writing topic responses the preferences were simply counted. whereas in analysing why the The TESOL Diploma in the Auckland New reading approach was preferred. p. a pivotal with reading on a TESOL course?. 2004. The Ministry of Education cohort differences for the factor(s) at baseline (Time offers scholarships for practising primary and 1 [T1])?. multicultural schools report session. 2012). 2002. (See Appendix 1 for an example). Jeurissen. Murphy. Derewianka. enable refinement of the approach to reading tasks Humphrey. reading is critical to update teacher learning. Separately. This superdiversity is. Equally important is an by exploring which of the three reading approaches understanding of ways for teachers to draw on and engaged them most. The topic was: What approaches received insufficient explicit attention in many to reading have you found most effective through countries. 2006. (2) What are the factor in education. structures were used. (3) What are the cohort differences for the secondary school teachers to gain TESOL factor(s) at follow up (Time 2 [T2])?. would decide on the next week’s require include the role of language in learning for reading. and knowledge by charting the teachers’ commitment to reading and about SLA pedagogy. the teachers chose one reading to 2000. and the Auckland University’s reference to the factor(s). socio-economically differentiated” and compared codes and evidence then together migrants (Vertovec. first course (227). the concept of teacher leadership suggests that teachers teachers read independently. Halliday. choosing one reading rightly and importantly hold a central position in the from the two to five-weekly readings. and (b) the cohorts of interest shift scholarship teachers complete four core courses over over the T1 to T2 period? 262 . 373 and 374). and an setting that is characterised by interdependence. and the teachers chose one from these and achievement is to be made (Kitchen. subsuming them into wider Zealand’s largest city and the context for this study. summarise. between two difference to entrenched patterns of ethnic and and five readings relevant to the lecture topic were social class profiles of students with low provided. is a magnet for demographic growth: about 40 The quantitative section below responds to percent of Auckland’s population were born these research questions: (1) What is/are the overseas (The Royal Society of New Zealand.. Allwright’s (2012) model of develop the language and cultural funds of exploratory practice that seeks to enhance the knowledge the students bring to school (Moll et al. The TESOL understandings that teachers towards the end of these 40-minute group reading working in multilingual. modified grounded Zealand context theory (Charmaz. It was anticipated that the findings would 1975. & Feez. The entire sample.1024). transnationally initial key codes and supporting evidence. to what degree do (a) the TESOL Diploma is the focus of this study. Teacher engagement with academic reading topics and knowledge bases that have a low capacity two years. more deeply the factors affecting the teachers’ In summarizing the literature. apply to a classroom setting. 1978. and then. and Courtney. 372. underlying factor(s) relating to teacher engagement 2014). the Parrott and Cherry reading group teaching and learning”. Gray. p. categories. necessarily. Droga.

16ns Secondary school 12 24.9 21 48. Courtney. 2012. & Finch.8 Education Level Dip/Undergrad 26 53.8 15 34.2 2. To answer RQ1 concerning the underlying In accordance with data conditions. data met all the assumptions determine the number of factors to retain during necessary for exploratory procedures. 2016). of the seven demographic groupings of interest for Questions were categorised under the following five the T1 and T2 cohorts is provided in Table 1.9 0. analysis suggested no 2015. As depicted in Table 1. 43 of the T1 participants constituted the T2 statistical significance in proportional shifts in sample. Ethical approval was not granted to track demographic categories across the two time points. Raosoft. 2013). EFA was factor(s) pertaining to the teacher professional carried out using SPSS 22 (IBM.46ns Teacher in leadership position 9 18. it is survey included 24 seven-point agreement scale recognised that the findings may not be questions designed by the authors to measure the generalizable to broader populations.1 Teaching Level Primary school 37 75. MAPr2 and PA-PCArm procedures were chosen to 1996).4 2.1 16 37. for all research.8 Lingual Ability Monolingual 31 63. or low-loadings existed.2 2. 6 No.5 9 20. pp. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics. At teaching level. almost two years later. skewness and kurtosis were under |2. EFA was Data preparation and exploratory factor analysis also chosen because the question items utilized in After preparatory procedures. and oblimin rotation (Beavers et al. and |7.) Gender Female 43 87.4 0. 260-270 Participants stable categories are reported on: Four of the stable Baseline participants (at T1) included 49 practising demographic categories are reported on: gender.7 14 32.18ns Multilingual 18 36. This has confidence that the shift in demographic categories implications whereby a 5. 2009). Demographics for T1 and T2 Cohort Time 1 (n = 49) Time 2 (n = 43) Demographic n % n % ?? (sig.9 27 62. January 2017. at the end of semester 2. education level. Following guidelines proposed by Beavers et appropriate for samples under 50 in data conditions al. Table 1. With the assistance of the SPSS R-menu variables. This provides some level of sample of the initial 49 respondents. over time. variables were the investigation are based upon little or no prior assessed for normality. Results revealed that. respectively| (Curran. current position.6 Note: 1Proportional shifts up in age. In addition. so the All proportions and proportional shifts over time 43 respondents at T2 could be considered a random appeared feasible.4 0. themes: (a) attitudes and practices. 2014.2 5 11. and years teaching conceivable from T1 to T2.30 and no cross- solutions involving one or two factors (de Winter.34ns Older (41+) 29 59. 2013) with ML reading.6 Years’ Teaching Experience1 Five to 10 years 26 53.9 Current Position1 Classroom teacher 40 81. Therefore. (d) links to classroom practice. utilized.32ns More than 10 23 46.32%. ongoing explorations of solutions for each dataset. teachers studying part-time in semester 1. T2.32% initial margin of error across the time period was reasonably consistent. Therefore.3 29 67. For RQ2 to 4.1 22 51.6 29 67. exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was estimation.1 0..32ns Grad/Postgrad 23 46.8 38 88.2 28 65. However. Both T1 and T2 datasets 263 . Vol. 2 x 2 Chi-square (? 2 ) values estimated with the assistance of Stangroom (2016) software. and minimum required loadings were . only the following four and (e) collegiality. 2. West. Participants were The quantitative questions posed in the repeated recruited by convenience sampling.4 14 32. Research suggests that EFA may be 2013).01ns Male 6 12. is associated with the T2 data (a sample of 43 from a population of 49 is associated with a margin of error Methods and materials of 5.6).4 (Basto & Pereira.0| 2. not all categories were considered stable (c) resourcefulness. pattern matrices were inspected whereby of quite high item-factor loadings (β≥.. individual participants across the time period. A breakdown extent to which the teachers engaged in reading. (b) accessibility.0|. Design and procedures Dodou & Wieringa. and lingual ability.6 Age1 Younger (20 to 40) 20 40.5 34 79.

86 .59 . In addition. and also reflects their engagement in factor(s) at follow up (Time 2)?” professional reading itself. studies.87.Kitchen. Professional reading has no relevance to my classroom practice. T2 mean ? = .22 Note: (T1: M = 5. Black.32 . independent Factor analysis for T1 and T2 sample t-tests. Jeurissen. Item-factor loadings and communalities of TESOL survey one-factor solution for T1 and T2. factor(s) at baseline (Time 1)?” 264 . p. . where T1 to T2 shifts in Valued To answer research RQs 2 and 3.69 . Time 1 (n = 49) Time 2 (n = 43) Valued Professional Reading h2 ? h2 ? Q19.56. . Table 2.60) and Babin. Valued education level. in accordance with methodological challenges that need to be Perneger (1998). and Courtney.86 and . SD = 1. account for the fact the independent sample t-tests do not sufficiently account for correlations between Assessment of cohort differences repeated answers. To for the purpose of finding a clean EFA solution that accommodate this methodological concern. with the single factor identified as valued reading. test unequal sample size calculator (Wilson. The factor represents the teachers’ by cohorts perception of the pedagogical utility of professional RQ3 asks.67 Percent Variance Explained 49. and. “What is/are the underlying factor(s) size calculator (Wilson.71 Q17. the T1 dataset was factor solution represented a coherent and split into cohort groups by gender. confirmation in further. T2: M = 6. Gray. For both T1 and T2 data.41.68 . 2006. results revealed no cohorts statistically significant differences among the four RQ2 asks. SD = observed standard deviation h2 = item communalities (italicised).71 . .74 . factor scores were Professional Reading are concerned.66 . alongside the t.62 Eigenvalues 4. statistically significant at p > . results Thereafter.49 .02.84 my teaching. the T2 sample deviates from the one-factor solution.32%. is presented in Table 2. 140).. For RQ4(a) and (b).69 and . The one-factor solution.49 . and to aligned across both time points. an appropriate method of determining differences in factor means for a group over a given time period. “What are the cohort differences for the comparison groups. Dodou & Wieringa T2 (follow up) valued professional reading level (2009).76. . theoretically plausible construct.44 . To answer this question.78 . the T2 dataset was split into cohort groups by the four established T1 (baseline) valued professional reading level by categories.93 Q18. SD = . four comparison groups. I enjoy finding new ideas for my teaching in my reading. “What are the cohort differences for the reading. independent concerning overall shifts. Q1. Anderson. and lingual ability. alongside the t-test unequal sample RQ1 asks. respectively. I implement ideas from readings to my classroom context. females only).49 .74 Q3* I rarely undertake professional reading.70 Q2.69 51. Readings provide new ways to understanding my students. large scale. Alpha coefficients at T1 and no statistically significant differences among the T2 were . .58 . . cohort subsets are concerned (e. there are some important It should also be noted that.67 Q20*.66 .47 . M = observed mean. effect sizes estimated by calculating sum scores (Hair. . ? = standardized item-factor loadings.69 .87). ongoing EFA procedures T1 sample with a margin of error of 5.50 . & Tatham.42 4.01. separate analyses) resulted in a T1.13. *item reverse-coded for analysis.61 . would have to be at least large (d < .47 . no Bonferroni adjustments were considered. As explained. mean β were . The ideas from my reading help me understand the puzzles that arise in .61 . this method was not possible because of the lack of FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION case alignment.87 . 2015) provide for an relating to ESOL teacher reading?” Ongoing assessment of both magnitude (Cohen’s d) and exploratory procedures (using T1 & T2 data in statistical significance (p) of change from T1 to T2. I find it easy to read the professional reading material we are given. ? = . respectively. especially where smaller sample t-tests could be carried out. in line with recommendations by de Winter. Although paired-sample t-tests would be made where multiple t-tests were carried out.72 Q6. ? = . Results revealed Professional Reading. Similar to T1. 2015) should also be considered speculative and subject to for the estimation of effect sizes (Cohen’s d).excellent at . Teacher engagement with academic reading were subject to separate.45 .86. I consciously make time for professional reading each week. To answer this question. teaching level. one. T1 mean ? = .69.53 . As an alternative. the eight-item. to assess group differences.and T2-aligned.g.56.

79 Yes 0. an independent sample t-test was first groups appeared to exhibit relatively comparable performed on the entire combined dataset.13ns).12 0. over the near two-year period. revealed that. Equal Var.77 Yes 1.52 1. January 2017.06ns Lingual Ability Monolingual 31 5.63ns Education Level Grad/Postgrad 21 6.264 0. Table 4.88 0.70.04 0.220 0.17 Male 6 5. To answer this question. M = observed mean. to what degree does the entire sample Reading factor constituted a viable factor at both shift over time? To carry out an assessment of the baseline and at the near two-year follow-up period shift in valued professional reading over the time in the current study.55ns Teaching Level Secondary 12 5.64 Female 38 6.05 0.457 0.01) (see that.978 0.22ns Teaching Level Secondary 9 5. effect sizes that are large (d < 0.01) teachers enrolled in the programme who reached tended to exhibit a greater increase in Valued levels of valued reading comparable to their male Professional Reading over the period than males (d colleagues.45 1. M = observed mean.68 Primary 34 6.47 0.83 Yes 0.125 0. Cohen’s d calculated in accordance with Wilson’s (2015) online tool. Comparison of valued professional reading by cohorts of interest at T2.96 0.19 0.37ns Education Level Grad/Postgrad 23 5.05) Levene’s test result.06ns Lingual Ability Monolingual 29 5. This was the most important teachers on the TESOL professional development quantitative result in the current investigation.65 0. t(df = 47) d(sig) Cohort Gender Female 43 5. Similar to T1.04 Yes 0.669 0.62 (p < . Vol. the T2 dataset was Table 3.00 0. (variance) between cohorts (✓) based on non-significant (p > . Demographic/ N M SD Equal Var. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics. results suggested that the Valued RQ4(a) asks. SD = observed standard deviation. Table 5). 260-270 T2 (follow up) valued professional reading level split into cohort groups by the four established by cohorts categories.05) Levene’s test result. pp. Total row. programme largely improved in relation to how RQ4(b) provides for a more detailed look at much they personally valued reading and considered which groups may have benefited the most in the its utility for professional practice. p < .06ns Note: n = 49.94 0.09 1.39) and meet minimum level of significance (*p = . results revealed no RQ3 asks. SD = observed standard deviation. Results presented in Table 5 improvement tended to be more relevant to female reveal that female teachers (d = 0. t(df = 41) d(sig) Cohort Gender Male 5 5.23 Multilingual 18 5. Similarly. although this result should be considered = -0.13 Yes 1.38 1. This transitional period. Assessment of shift in valued reading by cohort Summary of quantitative results over time In summary. there was a large and cohorts displayed similar levels of valued reading. overall.32ns Note: n = 43.71 Dip/Undergrad 22 6.82 Multilingual 14 6. 2.12 Primary 37 5.98 Yes 0. statistically significant increase in valued The main finding in the quantitative study was professional reading with d = 0. 265 . Comparison of valued professional reading by cohorts of interest at T1 Demographic/ N M SD Equal Var.38 1.05) in bold. (variance) between cohorts (yes) based on non-significant (p > .64 Yes 0.62 Yes 1. at follow-up. At the baseline level. ns = not statistically significant.242 0.193 0.26 Dip/Undergrad 26 5. 6 No.34 1. “What are the cohort differences for the statistically significant differences among the four factor(s) at follow up (Time 2)?” comparison groups. on average. Equal Var. Results levels of valued reading. teacher period.

The group members would explain parts of the reading that I had not understood. readings and having access to these is something I will miss next year. There more time reading researched materials.61** Dip/Undergrad 26 4. I am able to confidently contribute in collaborative talk and context. I have bought so much learning For example. 2007).02 0.56 yes 2.38 29 5.08 yes -0.63** Lingual Ability Monolingual 31 5. For example: “Liked to be able more than three times as many preferred this option to see readings through others’ eyes – gave one a compared with the other two choices combined.96 5 5. large and statistically significant (*p < . However.980(90) 0. .61 yes 2.60 yes 2.41 6.38 21 6. and the apply it to myself as a teacher.” Both monolingual and bilingual teachers talked at A bilingual teacher said that the practice the considerable length about the increased theoretical structured reading group roles gave her transferred and academic nature of the readings in Year Two.608(69) 0.175(46) 0. they school: found the collaborative talk around the readings helped them construct meaning and develop Group discussion has been really useful. Shift in valued professional reading over time by cohort and total.60 yes 2. .94 0.52 34 6.319(19) 0.34 38 6. and Courtney.005(42) 0. This There was reciprocity. Cohen’s d calculated in accordance with Wilson’s (2015) online tool. the open-ended questions. weekly independent reading). .71 yes 3.01) in bold and underlined. Group another article.05 0. Teacher engagement with academic reading Table 5.63 yes 2. Gray.70** Teaching Level Secondary 12 5. In the responses to skills when the readings were challenging.13ns Female 43 5. different people.58ns Primary 37 5. I use readings in my classroom finding and deserves to be explored in depth in practice to enhance teaching and learning. (variance) between cohorts (yes) based on non-significant (p > . and richer had TESOL knowledge to share: “This year the understandings gained from the group members’ level of difficulty was higher therefore time spent on prepared key points/questions/connections and reading was longer. I have loved the dialogic interaction that deepened language skills.” Qualitative Data: Improvement in value awarded This particular teacher was not the only bilingual reading teacher to comment on how regular reading and The teachers preferred the tightly structured reading regular discussion enriched her English language groups (Parrott & Cherry. but they are groups for two main reasons: accountability to the significant steps towards leadership because they group ensured they read the readings.47 14 6. confuse myself if not sure. effect sizes that are at least large (0.62** Note: Equal Var. twice as many of the “Collaborative talk proved to be very helpful/ group teachers chose this academic reading structure members would explain parts of the reading that I compared with the other two choices combined had not understood/ strengthened my understanding (summarise and present a reading to a small group of the language (English).85** Total 5. to greater participation in collegial discussions at her While this aspect was more challenging for all.386(30) 0. discussions on reading and how to Accountability was important.45 22 6.Kitchen.135(79) 0.56 yes 1.00 0. they valued the “sharing of to my school through the readings. 2011). I spend practical instructional classroom applications. a teacher who found attitudes towards reading have improved. more speculative given the small number of males talk about the reading and I gain new ideas from in the sample.88 -0.65 0. Jeurissen.53** Multilingual 18 5.220(9) -0.19 0. discussions have been really useful.72 yes 2.04 0. Demographic/ T1 N T1 M T2 N T2 M ΔM Equal t(df) d(sig) Cohort Variance Gender Male 6 5. This was an important yet unexpected PD meetings.62** Education Level * Grad/Posgrad 23 5. greater perspective.” once a semester. I listening to others’ talk irrelevant to her own participate more in professional circles.065(58) 0.” Others echoed these “I have been doing more reading compared to when thoughts: “It is also effective as people in the group I started the course.12 0.05) in bold. I found (373/374) method 266 .” ideas/understanding of readings – easier to understand .09 9 5. The teachers valued tightly structured reading These may be small steps.” This was in contrast descriptor “accountable” was used by many to independent reading: “This is good but can respondents.01) Levene’s test result (Tabachnik & Fidell.60 ≤ d) and meet minimum level of significance (*p < . My was one marked exception. Monolingual teachers approach was even more heavily favoured by relied on seeing the readings through the lenses of teachers who identified themselves as bilingual – others’ worldviews.

Kwakman (2003) highlights. case of course readings. .. G. Journal of Another key factor was reading relevance and Statistical Software. no Beavers. As teacher trainers we we have been reminded can be such a place. answers to Kwakman’s (2003) search for conditions Basto. Leicester skills and knowledge. 46(4). & Pereira. is interdependence in this sense. Individual (which can happen in school-based professional understandings were clarified and enriched because development). & Esquivel. did favour setting to the school setting. W. (2012). I enjoy leadership involves leading among colleagues with a readings where I get practical ideas for classroom focus on instructional practice. are based on completion. J. Moreover. matter which reading approach was in use. W. Of course teachers need to feel they and secondary school teachers on the TESOL are in a safe and supportive environment if they are diploma course did exhibit a significant increase in to ask for clarification regarding language and ideas. Teachers did individually read and outside. Lounsbury. these very teachers that our best learning comes from our students. theories. L.. Retrieved practical application to meet the needs of the from http://www. 6 No. becoming the experts on whom those in leadership The discussions are often robust as I believe could call when setting school learning goals everybody puts in more effort. in an out-of-school setting. Richards. that collegial interdependence can be a key to These findings have limitations in that they do not teacher learning. a A university environment away from one’s own follow-up study into ways in which this knowledge school peers and where the marks awarded. collaboration is beneficial when Allwright. pp. The learning transferred from the university Other teachers.jstatsoft. worked-out leadership positions. reciprocity enacted in multiple teachers’ unique English language learners. SLA-based strategies for saw such expanded teacher roles as offering real the classroom. however. M. These teachers. J. Paper presented at the essential contributing role together with specific IATEFL Research SIG Workshop. January 2017. the needs of students in their classrooms. that can arise through reciprocity when teachers are were the very teachers whose viewpoints and interdependent. Conditions critical to reciprocity experiences other respondents valued highly and group work success include each teacher’s because they elucidated for the monolingual individual reading and thinking role prior to group teachers.” and material resources to improve teaching and What accounts for the quantitative finding of a learning. S. York-Barr and Duke (p. in the was enacted in school contexts would be valuable. 261) exemplars of instructional. academic reading engagement over the two years. teachers were keen to understand and implement (2013). or by someone with power over them reflect prior to meeting in the group. were starting to step up to of the nature of the embedded. the teachers were as I have a task to do (creative connector etc. For example. 2016. These Huck. (2012). Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics. 2. S. Vol. one teacher reported: hope for improving schools: “Such a view of teacher “Lots of great ideas to use in the classroom. 2011). It discussion and a cross-cultural group composition. extend to observations of classroom and school Teachers engaged for the personal reasons that practices.. J. Practical considerations for using teaching and learning strategies appropriate for their 267 .. Skolits. and prevailing Ministry of Education The self-reports of the teachers in this study policies. M. This internal control may reduce the roles required teachers to go beyond the reading and risk that Le Fevre (2014) raises around challenging connect to and critique both TESOL notions and teacher thinking.” (Kitchen. K. S. D. 260-270 effective because I know that I must do my reading student cohort.. Timperley.” significant shift in the level of engagement with Connected with interdependence and the academic reading by the teachers? The qualitative challenge to teacher thinking was the notion that the data clearly show that the structure of the reading teachers had choice. menu for ordinal factor analysis. that appeared to drive the success of these reading REFERENCES groups. we have recognised the real learning somewhat formidable and were keen to ask for help. This confirms Little’s (1990) contention suggest that they risked challenging their thinking. fiscal my class. as well as working at and also a deeper understanding of the student in the organizational level to align personnel. England. Moreover. The academic reading demands were high and the discussion gave bilingual teachers access to a wider range of CONCLUSION meanings while adding to their academic English While the findings are clear that the 49 elementary language skills. Accountability meant the group from within the group and were not imposed from functioned well. . armed independent reading and weekly summaries because with new learning. Challenges to thinking came groups contributed. As who found the English of academic readings reported here. Gray & Jeurissen. 1–29. specific and practitioner research. An SPSS R- that increase teacher appetite for academic reading. This finding provides some University. Arguably.. Six principles for inclusive each group member has a manageable. J.) . A.

work and effectiveness. The persistence of privacy: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Kumaravadivelu.socscistatistics. V. leadership of learning. B. G. J. Factors affecting teachers’ research. Australia: Primary The University of Chicago Press. IBM SPSS statistics 21. Teachers College Courtney. J.. New Grammar and meaning. 55(5). Bonferroni adjustments.aspx Hall. H.. (2015). (2013). 1236–1238.educationengland.. S. Department of Education and Science (DES). (BES). I. West. (2006). Practical Assessment.. Berkshire.. Retrieved from Teaching and Teacher Education. J. Constructing grounded theory: Little. Teaching and Teacher New York. (2006). Wilson. 354–370. Newtown. D. Leadership and Policy (2016).. Research & participation in professional learning activities. R-Menu v2.. 38. & Journal. 145–170. L. http://www. Theory into Practice. The educational s/bullock/bullock1975. of factors to retain in EFA: using the SPSS Moll. Anderson. Calfee (Eds. (1996). 9(2).. Droga. S. & Robinson. P. Babin. M. B. Goal De Winter. J. Educational Perneger. (1978). Retrieved lives. Chicago. 15 (2). 44(2). (2003). V. Sammons.). K.1080/15700763. Kingston. Using Halliday. E. 168-191. Retrieved from PETAA. 6–11. & Cherry. B. (2002). Using doi:10. Teacher engagement with academic reading exploratory factor analysis in educational Kwakman. P. NY: Author. J.. Barrar. 10(2). H. (2007).. K.raosoft. (1998). & Fidell. J. (2016). Practical Assessment. M.. The MA: semiotic: The social interpretation of language Pearson/Allyn & Bacon. (2012). F. Curran. P. supports student learning. 673–708). (2011). futures: Te pae tawhiti. L.. H. & Louis. 132- http://pareonline.629767. UK: Sage. & Fung. R. 31(2). Exploratory factor analysis with small and predictors of achievement. J.0 to make more judicious (1992). setting in principal evaluation: Goal quality (2009). TESOL development: Best evidence synthesis iteration Quarterly. Timperley. Our Humphrey. School (1975).557519 Schools. & Feez. 135–167. 40(1). C. NJ: Prentice. Multivariate data analysis http://www. Psychological Methods. Lanham. H. Q. doi:10. (1996). In J. Stangroom. (2013). Sinnema. advice/papers/yr2014/our-futures/ Armonk. 18(6). NSW: Zealand: Author. G. (2006). C. & Putnam. 39(4). Teaching Sociology. M. Teachers matter: Connecting Raosoft. Funds of knowledge for teaching: estimations. Teacher learning that learning.. D. A. Autonomy and initiative in teachers’ London. Leadership and Policy in doi:10. NY: Macmillan.). Retrieved from D. and meaning. W. C.. Dodou.. Murphy (Ed. 147-181.pdf 141. Tabachnik. 56– (6th ed.. R. C. J. Timperley.. K. 91(4). 11(2). London..1080/15700763. Principals’ collaborative roles as in Schools. M. and Courtney. Evaluation. (2002). Newtown. A. The Royal Society of New Zealand. Parrott. 2/default2. S. Berliner & R. (2004). Upper Saddle River. The educational leadership robustness of test statistics to nonnormality and conference: Redefining leadership. Learning to teach. & Jeurissen. & Retrieved from Tatham. & Gonzalez. A. Jeurissen. Teacher professional learning and Changing tracks. A grammar companion for the 21st century (pp. (2007). Charmaz. Wellington. Sample size calculator. J. 59–81. (2014).html England: McGraw Hill/Open University Press. S.. Retrieved from: professional learning for building instructional http://www. M. 16–29. Spillane. leaders for learning. P. Borko. S. Research Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and & Evaluation.. British Medical Day.1. Boston. UK: Edward Arnold..2011. structured reading groups to facilitate deep Darling-Hammond. Knowledge and the Kitchen.).. (pp. (2011). C. (2014).. 83–104). T. & Wieringa. 149– http://pareonline. Stobart. TESOL methods: (2007). N. 316(7139). analysis. M. Hair.1037/1082-989X. S.1. F. A. Retrieved from 268 .html leadership challenge: Redefining leadership for Derewianka. Barriers to implementing In D. The Bullock report: A language for improvement processes and practices: life. B. L. M. Amanti. L. G.2011. Le Fevre. from http://www. G. challenging trends. perceptions of risk. specification error in confirmatory factor MD: Rowman and Littlefield. Black. K.Kitchen. Multivariate Behavioral Policy in Schools. Chi-Square test calculator.asp?v=18&n=6 170. 18(8). Handbook pedagogical change: The role of teachers’ of educational IBM Corporation. Education. B. Gu. What’s wrong with Leadership. IL: primary teachers. (1998). Leadership and sample sizes.. capacity. J.royalsociety. H. Neff. English Teaching Association. professional relations. Language as social multivariate statistics. R. Gray.. Research. (2012). & Finch. (1990). Determining the number Record. Gray. 509–536..

Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics. (2015).google. January 2017. D. The emergence of super. Vol. Effect size determination know about teacher leadership? Findings from program (Version 2. College Park. MD: University of Educational Research. Maryland.0) [Excel Macro two decades of scholarship. 6 No. BeDsiLVn7RxO8BoxTw&bvm=bv. 25). (2006) ons/series/2515/15341 esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8 Vertovec. (2004). J.govt. Review of Application]. 74(3).ac. 2. (Working Paper No. Retrieved from ES_Calculator. IJaYKHVURCBI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmas Centre on Migration.xls&usg=AFQjCNEsoJ7ET3Ft http://www. B. &ved=0CCsQFjACahUKEwieuIXB3fLHAhV diversity in Britain.. on. & Duke. 255–316.ox. Policy and Society.educationcounts. https://www.dGY _Vertovec.10253779 blications/working_papers/WP_2006/WP0625 3.d.pdf York-Barr. What do we University of Oxford. pp. 260-270 https://www. Retrieved from 269 .gmu.

and Courtney.Kitchen. Teacher engagement with academic reading Appendix 1: Sample of code headings Teacher Pedagogy Pedagogy Response to pedagogical approach to Ways in which teachers have used the working with readings. Gray. reading in their own learning/ teaching Bilingual Primary Female 270 . Jeurissen.